We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Woodford to leave Invesco
Comments
-
A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »Tim says all you need are a few cheap trackers and to ignore the noize
On the cheap ETF note does anyone here hold IUKD?
A wonderful example of the dangers of blind passive investing:
May 18 2007: Price 1380
March 16 2009: Price 472
Now: Price 901
This isnt a wild EM/MicroCap/GoldMiner type fund, rather one that superficially should attract naive investors after a bit of dividend income. And it does track its index remarkably well. Tim should love it.
Its TER is 0.4% which seems rather high for a cheap tracker.0 -
A wonderful example of the dangers of blind passive investing:
May 18 2007: Price 1380
March 16 2009: Price 472
Now: Price 901
This isnt a wild EM/MicroCap/GoldMiner type fund, rather one that superficially should attract naive investors after a bit of dividend income. And it does track its index remarkably well. Tim should love it.
Its TER is 0.4% which seems rather high for a cheap tracker.
I guess it depends if you invest a one off lump sum at the top of the market or if that is a sum invested as part of a drip feed. It also doesn't include any dividend re-investment either.
The passive approach seems to advocate drip feeding. People who started on the much heralded Vanguard Life Strategy route back in May this year on a passive approach are still sitting in the minus.
I guess you are not an advocate of Timothy Hale then?
It's curious because if ever a n00b comes on here the first publication they seem to be told to read is Tim Hale's book Smarter Investing.
Indeed I was - any other method of investing being regarded as "too risky"0 -
A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »I guess it depends if you invest a one off lump sum at the top of the market or if that is a sum invested as part of a drip feed. It also doesn't include any dividend re-investment either.
The passive approach seems to advocate drip feeding. People who started on the much heralded Vanguard Life Strategy route back in May this year on a passive approach are still sitting in the minus.
I guess you are not an advocate of Timothy Hale then?
It's curious because if ever a n00b comes on here the first publication they seem to be told to read is Tim Hale's book Smarter Investing.
Indeed I was - any other method of investing being regarded as "too risky"
The book teaches the "language", terminology and theoretical knowledge. A bit like the rules of a game. It doesn't necessarily mean you can play the game. There are many books and videos out their that will explain how to play golf too.
I think Tim is really trying to advocate the most efficient way to generate above average returns in the long term.
Not following the mantra may still get some there but it will have cost more in money, sweat, panic, fear and elation to do so.
A few may also be lucky and make all the right moves, at the right time, all the time.
Many more will flail around and end up undershooting the average chasing markets, up and down, with high cost providers."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
[Deleted User] wrote:Hi,
here's what HL have to say,
After more than 25 years at Invesco Perpetual, Neil Woodford has announced he will leave in April 2014 to set up his own fund management business. For the moment, we do not believe investors in his funds need take any action as a result of this news.
Neil will continue to manage the Invesco Perpetual High Income, Income, and UK Equity Pension funds until his departure in April next year, when Mark Barnett will take over. Neil is an exceptional manager and I believe he will continue to work hard at achieving strong performance for investors until he departs. I have a significant holding in Neil's funds and have no plans to sell at this time.
Mark Barnett has worked with Neil Woodford for 17 years, and they will work closely together throughout the transition period. He has built a good track record in his own right managing the Invesco Perpetual UK Strategic Income Fund and the Perpetual Income & Growth Investment Trust.
Neil Woodford is also responsible for managing the equity element of the Invesco Perpetual Distribution Fund (40% of the portfolio) and the Invesco Perpetual Monthly Income Plus Fund (20%). Ciaran Mallon, manager of the Invesco Perpetual Income & Growth Fund, has taken over the equity portion of both funds with immediate effect. The bond portion continues to be managed by Paul Read and Paul Causer, whom we hold in very high regard.
We will be meeting with the new managers shortly, and will update investors with our thoughts. We also await details of Neil Woodford's new venture. In the meantime we have suspended his funds from the Wealth 150, but we reiterate our view that if you are an existing investor, no action is necessary as a result of this news, provided the funds continue to meet your objectives.
Not sure H-L would be my chosen reference point. Similar version have been quoted elsewhere and are no doubt based on the IP press release.
IP are hardly going to say we have a different view of the way forward and we have been disappointed by results recentlky. There is a large contractual employment liability and are content to work through the notice period."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »Or diworseification
Sheep trackers rule I know.:shhh:"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »I guess it depends if you invest a one off lump sum at the top of the market or if that is a sum invested as part of a drip feed. It also doesn't include any dividend re-investment either.
The passive approach seems to advocate drip feeding. People who started on the much heralded Vanguard Life Strategy route back in May this year on a passive approach are still sitting in the minus.
I guess you are not an advocate of Timothy Hale then?
It's curious because if ever a n00b comes on here the first publication they seem to be told to read is Tim Hale's book Smarter Investing.
Indeed I was - any other method of investing being regarded as "too risky"
Yes dividend reinvesting does help in that it brings the current value for the IUKD long term investor to about 10% less than its highest in 2007. But it wouldnt have reduced the shock felt by the unlucky investors in 2008/9. I guess many would have sold out at a low.
I believe much of Tim Hales book is excellent and well worth recommending to a new investor. However I feel his uncritical advocacy of low charges as a primary criterion for choosing a fund and his inadequate treatment of the importance and effect of the different sectors in building a portfolio are major flaws.
One undesirable effect of his book is that it panders to the belief that many people find attractive that the world is really a simple place and all the experts get it wrong because they are foolish and corrupt. Some people seem to close the book with their eyes glowing in the knowledge that they now understand The Truth.0 -
all the experts get it wrong because they are foolish and corrupt.
The experts make money from investors without taking any risk themselves. I wouldn't call this getting it wrong, at least not from their POV.Some people seem to close the book with their eyes glowing in the knowledge that they now understand The Truth.
If Mr Hale didn't reference, at some length, all of the research showing the advantages of long-term drip-feeding into a rebalanced portfolio of (as much as possible) uncorrelated asset classes, and ensuring that fees are kept low to prevent their drag on returns, then you'd have a point.
As a scientist, I like coherent theories based on a large body of backing evidence.I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
A wonderful example of the dangers of blind passive investing:
A wonderful example of why you shouldn't use yield alone when selecting shares to hold in an income/value portfolio, particularly one with very few holdings and no cap on per-sector holdings.I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »Tim says all you need are a few cheap trackers and to ignore the noize
On the cheap ETF note does anyone here hold IUKD?
Yes, I bought some IUKD on 8/5. Total return 4.5% since then.
I also bought a similar amount of MINV, that has been a less successful experience - down 3.1%."Things are never so bad they can't be made worse" - Humphrey Bogart0 -
A wonderful example of the dangers of blind passive investing:
May 18 2007: Price 1380
March 16 2009: Price 472
Now: Price 901
This isnt a wild EM/MicroCap/GoldMiner type fund, rather one that superficially should attract naive investors after a bit of dividend income. And it does track its index remarkably well. Tim should love it.
Its TER is 0.4% which seems rather high for a cheap tracker.
And yet...
Compare an investment 5 years ago in IPI with IUKD.
IPI total return is now 103% vs 118% from IUKD. And that is comparing with an outstanding fund. Hardly a damning indictment.
IPI is of course less volatile."Things are never so bad they can't be made worse" - Humphrey Bogart0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards